Another machine, having two threads and generally like Greenough’s, was patented December 27, 1843, by George R. Corliss, of Greenwich, N. Y. It had eye-pointed needles reciprocated in horizontal paths, through holes previously made by awls, the goods being fastened between clamps and fed in front of the needles. [Illustration: [Furnace]] Another form of sewing machine, of which several varieties were patented between 1844 and 1850, adopted the somewhat primitive method of first crimping the cloth and then forcing it upon the needle, which was driven through a number of thicknesses at the same time, making a running stitch. In the year 1846, or over twelve years after Walter Hunt’s machine was built, Elias Howe, Jr., having probably ascertained that Hunt had never patented his machine, built a sewing machine upon the Hunt plan, adding two puerile devices (both of which were subsequently abandoned as useless), and procured a patent thereon in his own name. These devices were a “clipping piece” to control the unwinding of the shuttle-thread, and a “baster-plate,” to which the work was basted, and thus hung vertically in front of the machine. This machine never became of real utility until the inventions of Mr. Singer, five years later, had been added to the principles of action applied originally by Hunt and appropriated by Howe. After Singer’s inventions had been recognized as giving to the sewing machine a practical and immense value, Walter Hunt testified, under oath, as follows: “ELIAS HOWE _has several times stated to me that he was satisfied that I was the first inventor of the machine for sewing a seam by means of the eye-pointed needle, the shuttle and two threads, but said that he had the prior right to the invention because of my delay in applying for letters-patent._” In the year 1853, Hunt applied for a patent upon his invention, but was refused upon the ground of abandonment. Judge Charles Mason, Commissioner of Patents, in delivering his decision in May, 1854, upon the evidence in Hunt’s application, used the following language: “Hunt claims priority upon the ground that he invented the Sewing Machine previous to the invention of Howe. He _proves_ that in 1834 or 1835 he contrived a machine by which he actually effected his purpose of sewing cloth with considerable success. Upon a careful consideration of the testimony, I am disposed to think that he had then carried his invention to the point of patentability. I understand from the evidence that HUNT actually made a working machine in 1834 or 1835. The papers in this case show that _Howe_ obtained a patent for substantially _this same invention_ in 1846.”